PC Gamer - Misogyny & Video Gamers

Just FYI I wasnt really talking about MR, his actions etc. Whatever was done im sure he had coming, no argument here. I'm sure you can tell we never hit it off in any thread we co-habited. The right vs wrong post above was for people in general talking about anything on a forum. I guess I don't take it to heart when I don't "win" a forum debate or when I can't beat MR or equivalent into submission with logic. Whenever someone jumps to personal attacks it just annoys me, either side! Personal attacks are just baseless stupidity. We can't know enough about an online personality to make a justified personal attack. We can attack the argument for sure.

Thank you for the calcification I was worried you meant something else. You had me worried for a second, but I still stand by what I said for other posters.

Also thank you for the advice from the private forum as I took what you said to heart as sometimes it's just not worth it. Your right it's easier to just move on.

There is nothing more infuriating than non gamers having an opinion about what games are and how they must be.
Anita is a known scum who took people's money to make silly videos and all the rage against her is absolutely fine . Getting trashed , threatened and verbally abused for publicly expressing your stupid opinion is something people who have opinions and the will to let them out expect . Either you think you are right and stand by them or you moan like a little bitch forgetting that none has to tolerate you.

Originally Posted by Aubrielle
I think you guys are missing the point.
As Couch pointed out, nobody's trying to exalt the merits of her journalism or the strength of her character. This article was posted to point out just how bad the problem is - when someone speaking out about misogyny in video games is forced out of her home, it tends to prove her point, and the point of every reasonable person who's spoken on the topic.

You think that Sarkeesian's claims that

a) most existing games are inherently sexist

and

b) most [male] gamers suffer from a severe mental illness

are proven by the fact that a few people (how many exactly?) threatened and insulted her over the internet.

Originally Posted by Tragos
There is nothing more infuriating than non gamers having an opinion about what games are and how they must be.
Anita is a known scum who took people's money to make silly videos and all the rage against her is absolutely fine . Getting trashed , threatened and verbally abused for publicly expressing your stupid opinion is something people who have opinions and the will to let them out expect . Either you think you are right and stand by them or you moan like a little bitch forgetting that none has to tolerate you.

That kind of behavior is what I find appalling. You sound like you are one of those extremists who would threaten others for having an opinion you disagree with. I suggest you leave our forums and don't come back.

Has it been established that there were actual, credible, serious "death threats"?
Are we talking "I'm gonna pwn yu"?

That's what I'm having a hard time with. Issue pushers live for a good death threat to instantly prove their point in one fell swoop. Who, in this day and age of traceable everything, would risk imprisonment over an issue like this?

Too many times a swastika or racial slur is found scrawled on someone's home or something - just to find that they themselves actually did it, for one reason or another

Don't hate me, im just curious

I don't think there is such a thing like a death treat that is not to be taken serious. It isn't something that should be done in jest.
However I do not have a clue if the death treats were actually made. I'm just going with the story that was made and did no researching myself.

I find it greatly amusing (otherwise I would just find it depressing) that there is such a militant push-back over the "unreasonable demand" for treating half of our species with the same respect and privilege that the other half enjoys by virtue of having a penis.

Sarkeesian's motivations certainly seems shady, thanks to her sudden appearance in the video game world at such a convenient time (she never wrote or was involved in gaming before the recent wave of gender awareness, and may not be a "gamer" at all, severely harming her credibility). She also has been prone to outright factual errors, which shows laziness and irresponsibility with her "research." It also greatly irritates me that she highlights so many problems without ever pointing to positive examples - she has the audience and visibility to point people to games that do a good job of avoiding the issues she complains about, but I guess negativity garners more views and attention than positive videos.

None of this takes away from the point that this hobby's culture is severely flawed when it comes to gender relations, and "trolling" or making angry rants and threats of violence against women (whether serious or not) for daring to speak out feeds her relevance. It's fine to disagree of course, but that can be done in a civil manner. If the gaming culture evolves, people like Sarkeesian would (thankfully) be out of a job.

As a final note, I wish women like Aubrielle and Purpleblob here on the forums - women who are passionate, knowledgeable gamers and therefor have credibility - would replace people like Sarkeesian. It seems wrong that the most visible voice on these issues is an opportunist who wants to personally capitalize on controversy rather than change the culture out of a legitimate passion for the future of gaming.

Sorry for the "great wall of text" - I guess I had more to say about this than I intended!

If anyone is curious here are a few sites with some of the messages.

Link- http://www.ibtimes.com/feminist-gami…hreats-1672288

And of course her twitter page .

Link- https://twitter.com/femfreq

Like I said above you don't have to agree with what she says. It's about being respectful and explaining in reasonable terms why you agree , or disagree.

Outright shouting death treats and foul language will not win your counter argument. It never does just look at all the overruled state bans lately.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
I don't think there is such a thing like a death treat that is not to be taken serious. It isn't something that should be done in jest.

Just how long have you been on the internet? I kill u.

Noted.
I'm longer on the internet than you are probably, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. I assume it means hat you feel it is OK to say whatever you like because you are on a forum somewhere on the internet and not actually face to face to someone.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
That kind of behavior is what I find appalling. You sound like you are one of those extremists who would threaten others for having an opinion you disagree with. I suggest you leave our forums and don't come back.

You have comprehension issues .

I am just one in the long line of those who stood for their ideas despite threats and abuse and never used those behaviors to prove a point . When you believe you are right for the correct reasons negative reactions are expected and ignored.

What Anita did is to paint gamers and developers as chauvinist pigs and then use the blow back to prove her point …. and she is paid to make points.

As a passerby I´m kinda interested why was Minority Report banned.
From what I´ve seen the dude wasn´t ever the first to hurl insults around.

Originally Posted by Tragos
You have comprehension issues .

No, you actually say again what I comprehended before.

Originally Posted by Myrthos
Noted.
I'm longer on the internet than you are probably, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. I assume it means hat you feel it is OK to say whatever you like because you are on a forum somewhere on the internet and not actually face to face to someone.

It's the anonymity on the net that can make people assholes yes. But that's my point. You can't take everything online all that seriously, it's an entirely another thing to be threatened in person. Or to threaten someone in person too.

At Gamasutra:

“Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.

Gamer might mean players coming to play games as they are interested in the gameplay provided by a game.
In opposition to players who come to play games for cultural reasons (peer pressure, trends etc) or to be represented in a non existent world (players wanting story etc)

This journalist probably addresses players other than gamers, provides no analysis on gameplay.

All the fuss around the gender is a product of players other than gamers. Why advocate for withdrawing a name when the associated people are not behind the scandal?
It is better to properly name the other players, those who are responsible for the scandal.

The woman in the video is the same as her male counterparts. She belongs to the same bag.
She is infuriated as she sees no room for strong women representation in video games because her male counterparts take all the room to flatter their ego by associating themselves with strong men representation.
They are the same breed fighting over the same bone. Story and representation.

Why associate gamers who are a different breed? Gamers do not care about representation, playing an avatar that is a cat, a worm, a hedgehog, a monster, a mouse, or even no avatar at all, does not matter to a gamer.
What matters for gamers is the gameplay in a game.

But does this journalist address gameplay in video games or is he more interested in some cultural facets like those coming with a story?

Gamers shall not bear the responsibility for events they are not responsible of.
Instead of removing the name gamer that names players who are not responsible for this scandal, why not name properly those responsible for it?

She's actually pretty hot

Oops …

Well, they say you should never discuss politics or religion. Of course I don't agree - but I ALMOST think discussing gender discrimination is more prone to useless or harmful exchange than the other two.

Why? Because gender is relevant to everyone and we're all directly affected. Those who feel discriminated against, those who're discriminated against, those who discriminate without intent and those who discriminate with intent. It's all but impossible not to belong to one of those groups.

One, very basic, misconception is that discrimination exists because people FEEL discriminated against. Another basic misconception is that when you actually do discriminate, it's always with intent.

Those two are at the heart of almost every thread I've witnessed about discrimination, and I honestly don't see a good way around it.

It's like blood feuds, I suppose. Revenge is cyclical and suicidal in a way. Same goes for the hatred of gender.

If you've seen The Godfather - you should remember the difference between how Vito Corleone handled revenge and how Michael Corleone handled revenge.

When Sonny was murdered in the most brutal fashion, how did Vito respond? By foregoing revenge in the name of peace.

How did Michael respond? By destroying the opposing side so he wouldn't have to trust them ever again.

Now, if we think of that scenario and we replace the mafia with men and women, what would be the best solution? To hate the other side and diminish it?

lol your such a nerd comparing SJW bullshit to the godfather.